Is it time to select a Minority Leader & House Whip that will vigorously DEFEND Social Security?

....and who DO NOT think that the way to "strengthen" the most fiscally responsible program in American history is to slash the funded benefits paid with decades of sweaty payroll taxes as part of a deal to partially preserve historically low income tax rates for financial elites.

I have always admired Rep. Pelosi.

But defending Social Security is a bedrock issue.

Social Security is more than essential: It is the most fiscally responsible program in American history. It's surpluses have been a cash cow financing general fund deficits caused by the toxic combination of waging multiple wars while simultaneously slashing general fund revenues by lowering income tax rates for financial elites to historically low levels.

The Trust Fund's $2.7 trillion surplus makes the Social Security system the single largest CREDITOR of the Treasury.....The single largest FINANCIER of general fund deficits. The surplus creates solvency through 2033 (past the lifetimes of many baby boomers), and permanent solvency can be assured by adjusting the cap on FICA contributions.

Slashing benefits by $112 billion (in the next 10 years alone) as part of a deal to partially preserve the historically low, unsustainable tax rates for financial elites is simply not right.

Moreover, increasing the raiding of the Trust Fund to subsidize inadequate income tax revenues will not "strengthen" Social Security. . . To the contrary, it will ONLY STRENGTHEN THE AUDACITY of those who hope to PERMANENTLY hijack the Trust Fund so that elites can continue to enjoy artificially low income tax rates subsidized by the payroll taxes of other Americans.

1. I hate to admit it

But while part of me wants to love Pelosi, it has been downhill since the whole "Impeachment is off the table" which made sure our ability to hold the GOP in check was neutered like a puppy in a pound.

7. And why not exactly? If they'll support reducing SS and not push back against the White House,

10. I think you are mischaracterizing House Dems,

I don't think they are the problem, the problem is that Obama has a habit of ignoring them and not including them in virtually any negotiations. Pelosi fought hard and long and got the votes for single payer and Obama gave it away. Seems there were other similar situations when Pelosi lead the Dem majority through Obama's first two years.

It isn't the House Dems, it's Obama and few Blue Dog Senators that are the problem.

6. The cow has dried up

No wonder Pelosi's looking at making a purse out of the hide.

Yes, the surplus of FICA taxes in versus payments out financed all kinds of financial folly over the years, but we've finally hit the point where the pyramid is collapsing. I'm not surprised that our leadership has abandoned the carcass before it really starts to stink.

As for that $2.7 surplus, the only ways of paying it back are Federal budgets that run surpluses, swapping Trust Fund non-negotiable securities for regular Treasury bills and notes, or inflating the currency. Yes, I'd like to see the rich taxed to run the surpluses, but that's just not going to happen any time soon. If ever.

9. Are you suggesting

...that we can honor the $1.1 trillion held by China, the $1.1 trillion held by Japan, the $3 trillion held by other foreign investors, and the approximately $8 trillion held by others (including institutional investors, individual investors, and governmental agencies other than SS) but that we not honor the debt held by the SS Trust Fund?

That we have no option other than to continue historically low income tax rates?

12. Remember my option number 2 above?

Where fully negotiable securities are issued to replace previous obligations? That's how we presently deal with the debts we owe to China, Japan, and the other investors. We just keep on refinacing the mortgage, because we still can. If the Federal government had put regular T-bills and notes into the Trust Fund, I'd be a bit less worried about it.

But those IOU's (as Bernie Sanders even called them) are not tradeable on the open market, only Congress can decide to redeem them. I don't see that happening with the budget deficits that we're going to run for the rest of this decade.

No, I don't see taxes continuing at the current low levels, in fact, the fiscal cliff means they can finally rise to what they were under the Clinton Administration, where we did have budgets in surplus. The only thing is, it takes more than just tax money to make a surplus, it takes having spending be less than those taxes in a given year. With the retirement of the baby boomers, and the replacement of well-paying careers with McJobs, I don't see that happening any time soon.